From an economy of war to an economy of peace

by Olof Palme

Speaking to the Socialist International in Helsinki in 1978, Olof Palme made a passionate speech for disarmament which was re-published in European Nuclear Disarmament, Bulletin of Work in Progress, No 1, 1980. Decades on, Palme’s speech is worth considered attention as both a historical record and as a message from the past for future generations.

* * *

At our Geneva Conference in 1976 we stressed that “the chief object of international socialism is to substitute cooperation amongst peoples for confrontation between states.” The Socialist International recognized “the purpose of detente has been achieved and maintained through the effective participation of two super-powers” but that we “nevertheless refuse to acknowledge partition of the world between two immovable and opposing blocs that produce tension and run the risk of dangerous confrontation as a permanent fact of international relations. In the existing situation, lasting security for the world cannot be achieved merely through equilibrium between the power-blocs on the basis of shared spheres of influence. Nor can it be brought about by a balance negotiated between the super-powers alone.”

We considered that “the extension of detente must lead to greater co-operation between the nations, thus progressively reducing the sources of conflict and grounds for intervention in the great powers in fields that encroach upon the sovereignty and independence of States.”

Two trends in world politics are gradually eroding our prospects for a future of peace and justice. If unchecked, they could have disastrous consequences for [humankind] already within the next decades. One is the widening gap between rich and poor nations. The other is the arms race and the climate of confrontation and apprehension it engenders.

That rich nations grow richer while poor nations become poorer is intolerable from the point of view of solidarity and justice. But it is also intolerable because of the dangers inherent in such a situation of conflicts between the poor and rich, between north and south. The widening gap between rich and poor nations will inevitably lead to increased tensions between states and ultimately become a threat to world peace.

The arms race has now reached such levels that it is getting out of control. Intellectually one can perhaps afford the argument that there is no direct evidence of the relationship between armaments and the risks of war. In the nuclear age, complacency based on such a hypothesis becomes too risky a proposition. If the nuclear arms race continues unabated it might well become what Herbert York has called a “race to oblivion".

At the root of this gigantic arms race is the mutual distrust which has prevailed for quite a long time and which prevails between both superpowers and the nations committed to each. The policy of detente has partly dispelled this suspiciousness. When in this respect we speak of detente, it important to keep in mind that we are talking about relations between nations with vastly different social systems. Distrust among these nations can be further decreased or dispelled mainly in one way: through a dialogue, by broadening contacts, by cooperation in all possible areas. The greatest possible reciprocal openness is the only means we have at our disposal.

The conference for security and cooperation in Europe has laid an important foundation for continued efforts in this respect. Today there is a well-oiled apparatus for conferences and consultations. This should provide an incentive for all the parties of the International to go on working in this field. One of the parties of the Socialist International - the SPD - has, through its foreign policy, laid some of the most important cornerstones for a policy of detente. This entails an obligation, not only for the SPD, but for all of us who are affected by European security.

If we have a strength in this regard, it is in our ideas. We feel this strength. Only those who are weak and uncertain are reluctant to engage in discussion with those who have different views and ideas. A multitude of contacts among the various nations and peoples of Europe should be the next stage in the policy of detente. The dialogue should be elaborated into a many-facetted chorus. In this way, information and opinions can be exchanged and ideas tested against one another. This could lead to a further lessening of distrust. In the wake of this phasing out of distrust there is going to flow mutual confidence that national security can be created and maintained in ways far less financially detrimental and eternally deadly than the methods which prevail today in the military systems of all countries. We have to widen the concept of national security. A broad offensive to inject new life into all the elements of the policy of detente is thus the first point I would like to designate as basic to the disarmament efforts of the future.

My second point concerns the question of whether the arms race, and particularly the nuclear arms race and the related strategic weapons systems in general, are relevant, if the objective is to safe-guard national security. Alva Myrdal has maintained the theory, in her comprehensive work on disarmament, that the arms race is really just a consequence of a gigantic miscalculation. Developments in recent years have obviously confirmed this theory. The military expenditures in the world were estimated in 1977 to have amounted to close to 400 billion dollars. This means more than a billion dollars each day. These enormous expenditures stand in no kind of proportion to the increased security which they are intended to buy. In point of fact, they increase the threat to people’s security in all countries. The arms race is also intolerable because it represents a tremendous waste of human, material and technological resources for destructive instead of constructive purposes ...

But even if today we are facing a quantitative arms race of tremendous proportions, perhaps the qualitative arming is even more perilous. It seems there is no limit at all to what military research and development can cost. New weapons see the light of day, not because they are needed in any sense of the word, but because it is possible to develop and produce them. And if there is no strategy for their employment, then such a strategy is invented ...

Nuclear disarmament remains the most important objective. It is obvious that the two major nuclear weapons states, the Soviet Union and the United States, will have to take the lead in this disarmament process. That the powers have been able to achieve agreement on limitations of their nuclear arsenals must be regarded as an important victory for statesmanship and rationality. On the other hand, they have not been able to agree on any genuine measures of disarmament, and they have not been able to agree on a comprehensive test ban treaty, long overdue. They have given solemn pledges to the world community to reach real results in their talks in nuclear disarmament. Impatience in the world community is growing, not least in view of the fact that other nations have been queuing up to acquire nuclear weapons and the chimerical status and security that go with these weapons.

As my third point, I would like to take up a special aspect of the nuclear arms race. The vast nuclear weapons arsenals on the European Continent pose a threat not only to their possessors and the countries allied with them. They pose a threat, as well, to all the peoples of Europe. All the ideas and every initiative which can remove or decrease these threats are to be welcomed. A former Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Östen Undén, once presented the thought to the United Nations of a nuclear-free club some 15 years ago. This thought has continually been revised in various forms ever since, in international discussions.

In Europe there are no immediate or acute threats of conflicts of a military nature. But the disagreements between the great power blocs still cast their shadows across Europe. No tangible progress in the disarmament talks has been achieved during recent years. This is disturbing.

Thus Europe is no special zone where peace can be taken for granted. In actual fact, it is the centre of the arms race. Granted, the general assumption seems to be that any potential military conflict between the superpowers is going to start someplace other than in Europe. But even if that were to be the case, we would have to count on one or the other party - in an effort to gain supremacy - trying to open a front in our continent, as well. As Alva Myrdal has recently pointed out, a war can simply be transported here, even though actual causes for war do not exist. Here there is a ready theatre of war. Here there have been great military forces for a long time. Here there are programmed weapons all ready for action …

Today more than ever there is, in my opinion, every reason to go on working for a nuclear-free zone. The ultimate objective of these efforts should be a nuclear-free Europe. The geographical area closest at hand would naturally be Northern and Central Europe. If these areas could be freed from the nuclear weapons stationed there today, the risk of total annihilation in case of a military conflict would be reduced.

This would make it possible to fully exploit the international agencies to prevent, postpone and ameliorate the effects of a conflict. It would improve the possibility to prevent a nuclear war being started by mistake.

Here I would like, as a fourth point, to remind you of the negotiations which have been going on since 1973 in the Austrian capital on arms limitations in Europe. The risk that a conflict will be transmitted to our continent would be reduced if the weapons arsenals of Europe could be radically reduced. During the five years that these talks have been going in Vienna, however, no positive results have been achieved, so far. Instead, the negotiations seem to have more nearly been paralyzed. There has been no lack of concrete proposals but the paralysis is of political nature ...

This brings me to my fifth point. I firmly believe that it is imperative to start a process of disarmament for development, a process of redeploying the resources spent on armaments to civilian purposes. Two trends which threaten peace - the arms race and the growing disparities between rich and poor in the world - could be transformed into one process that would enhance the possibilities of peace.

The human, material, technological and financial resources spent on armaments constitute on immense potential reserve for development purposes, for a new international economic order.

The changes in the flow of resources which we are working to achieve - away from military expenditures over to constructive appropriations for development - present a challenge to our common sense and an incentive for radical initiatives in all countries. It is essential to talk over the various kinds of adjustment problems which can arise in the industrialized countries as well, when resources for research and development and for production are switched over from military to civilian ends. The structure of the arms industry should be investigated and an alternative use of military-industrial technology for civilian purposes promoted, in an effort to contribute toward a continued economic development which can be used to satisfy social needs. Studies of the economic and other consequences of such a changeover can facilitate disarmament talks …

Both at the international and national level we have to make the general public aware of the magnitude of the resources that are now devoted to armaments and the tremendous potential for development these resources represent.

Trade unions can play an important role in a process of disarmament. One of the greatest obstacles is the widespread misconception that disarmament. will lead to unemployment and a lower standard of living. I would like to stress here that the labour unions have a decisive role in working out plans for change in the employment structure and to make such a change acceptable to their members.

My emphasis on the need to inform and mobilize public opinion derives from my faith in the principles of democracy and in the sound judgment and reason of ordinary people. I believe that the vital issues of our time can be grasped by anybody who is in the possession of the basic facts. People need not be defenceless victims of technological progress. And I believe in particular that public opinion will react very strongly once it has been made aware of the contrast between the needs of the poor and the waste of resources represented by the arms race.

A strong and informed public opinion is also necessary in order to turn the tide. It is essential to underpin and strengthen political will in the effort to initiate the process of disarmament and development. It is now time to switch over from a world economy based on the threat of war to one dedicated to peaceful social construction and social needs, - in a word, from an economy of war to an economy of peace.

To establish peace in today's world is first and foremost a question of creating a just social order for all the world’s people. The responsibility for failing to economize the world’s resources lie with the rich countries who spend colossal resources on military weapons. It is these countries who must create an economy of peace. The change has to begin there. The change has to begin now.

* * *

The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation has an extensive archive of materials from the END initiatives of the 1980s. Get in touch to find out more.